CI/CO vs Clean Eating
Replies
-
If anyone wants to argue that eating lots of fruits and vegetables, lean meats, and complex carbs is good for your, I will not argue. If these same people want to argue that such a diet contains more micro-nutrients, I will not argue. If these people want to argue that is increases satiety and is therefore easier to follow, I will not argue.
These are my reasons, bolded being immediately relevant to me personally
All of it is relevant to me and why I do it.
I think OP's question, rephrased, comes down to: does the nutritional content of my diet make a difference to my results, specifically success at recomposition and maintaining lean body mass. If so, I think the answer is yes, to some extent, probably. The reasons are that getting adequate protein (for sure) and adequate micronutrients (I would think) are probably going to result in more success at building/maintaining muscle and also may have an effect on how effectively she can pursue her exercise (although she also may be someone who is more successful at those things if she includes a certain amount of carbs, including the oft-defamed quick carbs in her diet).
However, none of this has to do with "eating clean" as usually defined. You can eat lots of fruits and veggies, lean meats, and complex carbs without eating clean and for some people it might even be easier to do so in some ways if you rely to some extent on foods often claimed as "unclean" (processed and convenience foods).
For example, some people might enjoy veggies more or be more apt to eat them (if they hate to cook) if they buy them precooked or even in a cheese sauce or some such. Years ago I liked to make those Vigo beans and rice packages and add veggies to that--easy, and IMO plenty healthy, but not "clean." Others may rely on protein bars or powders to reach some of their protein needs or go to Chipotle (there's a so-called "clean eater" poster around here who does that) or use smoked or tinned fish and various processed dairy products (like greek yogurt and cottage cheese). Personally I find prepackaged greens useful to have around for a quick salad, although I don't only eat those, and same with the occasional baby cut carrots and canned tomatoes, whole wheat pasta, etc.
(I don't think OP really meant to ask about eating "clean," though.)0 -
I left this post alone ALL weekend like a good boy! I said to myself, "This thing will be dead before I know it!!"....wrong.....
I see we've moved on from Sugar vs. Cocaine to Food Addiction vs. Alcohol Addiction....... seriously??????
Oh....so I don't derail......
CI > CO = Weight gain , CI < CO = weight loss , CI=CO = boring!!!! :-) (CI = any food you want to cram down your gullet!)
partial derail???? ......
@senecarr AA is founded on spirituality....... spirituality =/= religion.0 -
I left this post alone ALL weekend like a good boy! I said to myself, "This thing will be dead before I know it!!"....wrong.....
I see we've moved on from Sugar vs. Cocaine to Food Addiction vs. Alcohol Addiction....... seriously??????
Oh....so I don't derail......
CI > CO = Weight gain , CI < CO = weight loss , CI=CO = boring!!!! :-) (CI = any food you want to cram down your gullet!)
partial derail???? ......
@senecarr AA is founded on spirituality....... spirituality =/= religion.
So recomposition is boring to you?
0 -
I left this post alone ALL weekend like a good boy! I said to myself, "This thing will be dead before I know it!!"....wrong.....
I see we've moved on from Sugar vs. Cocaine to Food Addiction vs. Alcohol Addiction....... seriously??????
Oh....so I don't derail......
CI > CO = Weight gain , CI < CO = weight loss , CI=CO = boring!!!! :-) (CI = any food you want to cram down your gullet!)
partial derail???? ......
@senecarr AA is founded on spirituality....... spirituality =/= religion.
You're arguing semantics with that. AA isn't evidence based is the main point of the argument. It is also religious enough that it violates the Religion clause of the first amendment to force prisoners to take AA.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »If anyone wants to argue that eating lots of fruits and vegetables, lean meats, and complex carbs is good for your, I will not argue. If these same people want to argue that such a diet contains more micro-nutrients, I will not argue. If these people want to argue that is increases satiety and is therefore easier to follow, I will not argue.
These are my reasons, bolded being immediately relevant to me personally
All of it is relevant to me and why I do it.
I think OP's question, rephrased, comes down to: does the nutritional content of my diet make a difference to my results, specifically success at recomposition and maintaining lean body mass. If so, I think the answer is yes, to some extent, probably. The reasons are that getting adequate protein (for sure) and adequate micronutrients (I would think) are probably going to result in more success at building/maintaining muscle and also may have an effect on how effectively she can pursue her exercise (although she also may be someone who is more successful at those things if she includes a certain amount of carbs, including the oft-defamed quick carbs in her diet).
However, none of this has to do with "eating clean" as usually defined. You can eat lots of fruits and veggies, lean meats, and complex carbs without eating clean and for some people it might even be easier to do so in some ways if you rely to some extent on foods often claimed as "unclean" (processed and convenience foods).
For example, some people might enjoy veggies more or be more apt to eat them (if they hate to cook) if they buy them precooked or even in a cheese sauce or some such. Years ago I liked to make those Vigo beans and rice packages and add veggies to that--easy, and IMO plenty healthy, but not "clean." Others may rely on protein bars or powders to reach some of their protein needs or go to Chipotle (there's a so-called "clean eater" poster around here who does that) or use smoked or tinned fish and various processed dairy products (like greek yogurt and cottage cheese). Personally I find prepackaged greens useful to have around for a quick salad, although I don't only eat those, and same with the occasional baby cut carrots and canned tomatoes, whole wheat pasta, etc.
(I don't think OP really meant to ask about eating "clean," though.)
I agree that most of the foods people call "clean" undergo some amount of processing. However, when people say they want to eat "clean" I think what most mean by it is just more veg, fruit, meat, complex carbs, etc. There are some outliers to that who have some funny ideas but there is a common-sense understanding of "clean food", just like there is of "junk food", and the reality is that eating more of the former than the latter is likely to lead to greater long-term success at weight loss and maintenance.
I feel like some of the arguments around this debate miss the usefulness of pragmatic rules of thumb. I'm not bothered if someone calls spinach in a bag clean vs processed, know what I mean? End result is that spinach has some helpful stuff in it . And if thinking about it as "clean" helps people make more health-serving choices, it's fine, as far as I'm concerned0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.
it's not really irresponsible and unkind if 12 step programs don't actually work
that's why I'm wondering just how effective they are
if they work then yes you are def right
This question of 12 step programs working depends on the individual.
that may be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread
you cannot determine the success of ANYTHING based on the results of a single individual
which is why I asked how effective they are
as in, overall success rate0 -
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.
it's not really irresponsible and unkind if 12 step programs don't actually work
that's why I'm wondering just how effective they are
if they work then yes you are def right
This question of 12 step programs working depends on the individual.
that may be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread
you cannot determine the success of ANYTHING based on the results of a single individual
which is why I asked how effective they are
as in, overall success rate
Let me be more clear. One the only way you would get a stat on the 12 step programs working is by the individual saying that it has work. What is the success we talking about? Lets just assume it is true alcoholism to no drinking. That rarely happens. Also not every person in AA is an alcoholic. I was one of those who was not an alcoholic. Alcohol treatment is a requirement at least in the state of MD with some alcoholic infractions (DUI is a must for alcohol treatment in MD). The places I went to almost requirement you go to some for on AA. I can tell you the amount of stories I have heard on relapse as to the ones who pick up more chips to show your sobriety.
Lets just say for my outpatient treatment the counselors told me to stop telling the group that I had a sober night at the bar. My program you were pissed tested for alcohol. I think it can be shown in your system for up to 72 hours if I remember. Then the what I felt were true alcoholics would put me aside and tell me how they felt I was correct to not associate myself as alcoholic.
Will there be a stat on AA and the success rate? I don't think this stat will ever exist.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.
it's not really irresponsible and unkind if 12 step programs don't actually work
that's why I'm wondering just how effective they are
if they work then yes you are def right
This question of 12 step programs working depends on the individual.
that may be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread
you cannot determine the success of ANYTHING based on the results of a single individual
which is why I asked how effective they are
as in, overall success rate
Let me be more clear. One the only way you would get a stat on the 12 step programs working is by the individual saying that it has work. What is the success we talking about? Lets just assume it is true alcoholism to no drinking. That rarely happens. Also not every person in AA is an alcoholic. I was one of those who was not an alcoholic. Alcohol treatment is a requirement at least in the state of MD with some alcoholic infractions (DUI is a must for alcohol treatment in MD). The places I went to almost requirement you go to some for on AA. I can tell you the amount of stories I have heard on relapse as to the ones who pick up more chips to show your sobriety.
Lets just say for my outpatient treatment the counselors told me to stop telling the group that I had a sober night at the bar. My program you were pissed tested for alcohol. I think it can be shown in your system for up to 72 hours if I remember. Then the what I felt were true alcoholics would put me aside and tell me how they felt I was correct to not associate myself as alcoholic.
Will there be a stat on AA and the success rate? I don't think this stat will ever exist.
@Mr_Knight mentioned an epidemiological study on this
asked him for a source (and more info) but he didn't provide it yet because he hates us apparently0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.
it's not really irresponsible and unkind if 12 step programs don't actually work
that's why I'm wondering just how effective they are
if they work then yes you are def right
This question of 12 step programs working depends on the individual.
that may be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread
you cannot determine the success of ANYTHING based on the results of a single individual
which is why I asked how effective they are
as in, overall success rate
Let me be more clear. One the only way you would get a stat on the 12 step programs working is by the individual saying that it has work. What is the success we talking about? Lets just assume it is true alcoholism to no drinking. That rarely happens. Also not every person in AA is an alcoholic. I was one of those who was not an alcoholic. Alcohol treatment is a requirement at least in the state of MD with some alcoholic infractions (DUI is a must for alcohol treatment in MD). The places I went to almost requirement you go to some for on AA. I can tell you the amount of stories I have heard on relapse as to the ones who pick up more chips to show your sobriety.
Lets just say for my outpatient treatment the counselors told me to stop telling the group that I had a sober night at the bar. My program you were pissed tested for alcohol. I think it can be shown in your system for up to 72 hours if I remember. Then the what I felt were true alcoholics would put me aside and tell me how they felt I was correct to not associate myself as alcoholic.
Will there be a stat on AA and the success rate? I don't think this stat will ever exist.
@Mr_Knight mentioned an epidemiological study on this
asked him for a source (and more info) but he didn't provide it yet because he hates us apparently
He needs to bring out that study because like I said at least in state of MD if you get a DUI you will more likely find yourself in AA. I am not sure about other states but I do know in New York they have stricter consequences than MD for DUI(s). Also Virginia has stricter consequences than MD. Does these stricter consequences help with the people who would then go into AA? I feel might have a better success rate for the 12 steps.
I was lucky to that my program let me go to NA which had people more my age to relate to. I found it very hard to relate to people whose sobriety were longer than my age. Like do you even remember your last drink.
My programs was weird though. I got the vibe that they would let you relapse and the consequence was you had to tell the group and go through the relapse prevention steps. Also it would more likely show on your piss test that you did relapse. If you didn't tell the group then the counselors had problems.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.
it's not really irresponsible and unkind if 12 step programs don't actually work
that's why I'm wondering just how effective they are
if they work then yes you are def right
This question of 12 step programs working depends on the individual.
that may be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread
you cannot determine the success of ANYTHING based on the results of a single individual
which is why I asked how effective they are
as in, overall success rate
Let me be more clear. One the only way you would get a stat on the 12 step programs working is by the individual saying that it has work. What is the success we talking about? Lets just assume it is true alcoholism to no drinking. That rarely happens. Also not every person in AA is an alcoholic. I was one of those who was not an alcoholic. Alcohol treatment is a requirement at least in the state of MD with some alcoholic infractions (DUI is a must for alcohol treatment in MD). The places I went to almost requirement you go to some for on AA. I can tell you the amount of stories I have heard on relapse as to the ones who pick up more chips to show your sobriety.
Lets just say for my outpatient treatment the counselors told me to stop telling the group that I had a sober night at the bar. My program you were pissed tested for alcohol. I think it can be shown in your system for up to 72 hours if I remember. Then the what I felt were true alcoholics would put me aside and tell me how they felt I was correct to not associate myself as alcoholic.
Will there be a stat on AA and the success rate? I don't think this stat will ever exist.
@Mr_Knight mentioned an epidemiological study on this
asked him for a source (and more info) but he didn't provide it yet because he hates us apparently
He needs to bring out that study because like I said at least in state of MD if you get a DUI you will more likely find yourself in AA. I am not sure about other states but I do know in New York they have stricter consequences than MD for DUI(s). Also Virginia has stricter consequences than MD. Does these stricter consequences help with the people who would then go into AA? I feel might have a better success rate for the 12 steps.
I was lucky to that my program let me go to NA which had people more my age to relate to. I found it very hard to relate to people whose sobriety were longer than my age. Like do you even remember your last drink.
My programs was weird though. I got the vibe that they would let you relapse and the consequence was you had to tell the group and go through the relapse prevention steps. Also it would more likely show on your piss test that you did relapse. If you didn't tell the group then the counselors had problems.
I agree, a few of us have asked for the study to be posted
I sympathize with your personal account on this, fo real
but I do have to ask you to consider how state/federal mandating of admittance to the program as part of sentencing for a DUI might skew the success rate of the program. you know?
people who are forced to go to AA to avoid jail/parole/etc. would probably have a much stronger motivation to make it through the program than someone who goes voluntarily
so I think that would skew the results0 -
Man, if only there was some way to enter words into the internet and find if anyone has done studies on something:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/However, rigorous experimental evidence establishing the specificity of an effect for AA or Twelve Step Facilitation/TSF (criteria 5) is mixed, with 2 trials finding a positive effect for AA, 1 trial finding a negative effect for AA, and 1 trial finding a null effect. Studies addressing specificity using statistical approaches have had two contradictory findings, and two that reported significant effects for AA after adjusting for potential confounders such as motivation to change.0 -
I agree that most of the foods people call "clean" undergo some amount of processing. However, when people say they want to eat "clean" I think what most mean by it is just more veg, fruit, meat, complex carbs, etc. There are some outliers to that who have some funny ideas but there is a common-sense understanding of "clean food", just like there is of "junk food", and the reality is that eating more of the former than the latter is likely to lead to greater long-term success at weight loss and maintenance.
I feel like some of the arguments around this debate miss the usefulness of pragmatic rules of thumb. I'm not bothered if someone calls spinach in a bag clean vs processed, know what I mean? End result is that spinach has some helpful stuff in it . And if thinking about it as "clean" helps people make more health-serving choices, it's fine, as far as I'm concerned
I see the "clean eating" vs. moderation argument as essentially an argument between those who say it's better to NEVER eat any "processed" foods (regardless of what you actually eat) vs. those who say one should eat a primarily nutritious, balanced diet, but if that happens to include some highly processed foods (or lots of processed foods like most everything is) or some less nutritious extras, there's no harm from that at all.
Thus, my understanding (based on the definitions given by "clean eaters") is that "eating clean" is about NEVER eating certain things, not simply trying to include more fruits and veggies and lean meats and complex carbs.
After all, I do the latter and always recommend the latter--indeed, one of my main problems with "clean eating" is that I think focusing on not eating a few things is the wrong focus if one wants to construct a healthy diet. Focusing on the foods you primarily eat (like adding in enough protein and lots of veggies, shifting to less processed carbs where possible and helpful, so on, as well as seeing where you are getting extra calories and addressing that in general) is IMO a better method for most people and--in particular--one that's more related to actual nutrition than lots of the "NO processed foods!" clean eating silliness.
My problem with the spinach in a bag thing is that I freely admit that I eat processed foods (like the bagged spinach) because I find it helpful, and I think cutting out that stuff often makes it harder for people than it needs to be. But then I get lectured by people who eat just as much or more processed stuff than I do about how they have cut out processed stuff (when they have not, they just have a weird definition) and I should eat healthy like them.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.
it's not really irresponsible and unkind if 12 step programs don't actually work
that's why I'm wondering just how effective they are
if they work then yes you are def right
This question of 12 step programs working depends on the individual.
that may be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread
you cannot determine the success of ANYTHING based on the results of a single individual
which is why I asked how effective they are
as in, overall success rate
Let me be more clear. One the only way you would get a stat on the 12 step programs working is by the individual saying that it has work. What is the success we talking about? Lets just assume it is true alcoholism to no drinking. That rarely happens. Also not every person in AA is an alcoholic. I was one of those who was not an alcoholic. Alcohol treatment is a requirement at least in the state of MD with some alcoholic infractions (DUI is a must for alcohol treatment in MD). The places I went to almost requirement you go to some for on AA. I can tell you the amount of stories I have heard on relapse as to the ones who pick up more chips to show your sobriety.
Lets just say for my outpatient treatment the counselors told me to stop telling the group that I had a sober night at the bar. My program you were pissed tested for alcohol. I think it can be shown in your system for up to 72 hours if I remember. Then the what I felt were true alcoholics would put me aside and tell me how they felt I was correct to not associate myself as alcoholic.
Will there be a stat on AA and the success rate? I don't think this stat will ever exist.
@Mr_Knight mentioned an epidemiological study on this
asked him for a source (and more info) but he didn't provide it yet because he hates us apparently
He needs to bring out that study because like I said at least in state of MD if you get a DUI you will more likely find yourself in AA. I am not sure about other states but I do know in New York they have stricter consequences than MD for DUI(s). Also Virginia has stricter consequences than MD. Does these stricter consequences help with the people who would then go into AA? I feel might have a better success rate for the 12 steps.
I was lucky to that my program let me go to NA which had people more my age to relate to. I found it very hard to relate to people whose sobriety were longer than my age. Like do you even remember your last drink.
My programs was weird though. I got the vibe that they would let you relapse and the consequence was you had to tell the group and go through the relapse prevention steps. Also it would more likely show on your piss test that you did relapse. If you didn't tell the group then the counselors had problems.
I agree, a few of us have asked for the study to be posted
I sympathize with your personal account on this, fo real
but I do have to ask you to consider how state/federal mandating of admittance to the program as part of sentencing for a DUI might skew the success rate of the program. you know?
people who are forced to go to AA to avoid jail/parole/etc. would probably have a much stronger motivation to make it through the program than someone who goes voluntarily
so I think that would skew the results
IDK. You remember how I said it up to the individual to work the program. I didn't think I had an issue until my second DUI and reality step in. I went through the whole outpatient treatment. Talked to a license social worker. He sucked. Why would tell me to run an experiment at the bar with having a sober night and getting blacked out drunk night. That whole program was crappy IMO. I didn't want to go back to that one on my second DUI.
The individual needs to want to change on there own. That person needs to see what is really happening.
Yeah surprisingly I wasn't one of them (Alcoholic) but when I heard people talk about how food addiction compares to alcohol addiction I have to stick up for them because they clearly read something that claims its the same. It is nowhere close to the same.0 -
Man, if only there was some way to enter words into the internet and find if anyone has done studies on something:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/However, rigorous experimental evidence establishing the specificity of an effect for AA or Twelve Step Facilitation/TSF (criteria 5) is mixed, with 2 trials finding a positive effect for AA, 1 trial finding a negative effect for AA, and 1 trial finding a null effect. Studies addressing specificity using statistical approaches have had two contradictory findings, and two that reported significant effects for AA after adjusting for potential confounders such as motivation to change.
hey LMGTFY didn't find it for me on the first page of search results so obviously it didn't exist u kno0 -
Man, if only there was some way to enter words into the internet and find if anyone has done studies on something:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/However, rigorous experimental evidence establishing the specificity of an effect for AA or Twelve Step Facilitation/TSF (criteria 5) is mixed, with 2 trials finding a positive effect for AA, 1 trial finding a negative effect for AA, and 1 trial finding a null effect. Studies addressing specificity using statistical approaches have had two contradictory findings, and two that reported significant effects for AA after adjusting for potential confounders such as motivation to change.
hey LMGTFY didn't find it for me on the first page of search results so obviously it didn't exist u kno
I usually just assume people are mobile where it is a PITA to find and link things compared to at a computer.0 -
Man, if only there was some way to enter words into the internet and find if anyone has done studies on something:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/However, rigorous experimental evidence establishing the specificity of an effect for AA or Twelve Step Facilitation/TSF (criteria 5) is mixed, with 2 trials finding a positive effect for AA, 1 trial finding a negative effect for AA, and 1 trial finding a null effect. Studies addressing specificity using statistical approaches have had two contradictory findings, and two that reported significant effects for AA after adjusting for potential confounders such as motivation to change.
hey LMGTFY didn't find it for me on the first page of search results so obviously it didn't exist u kno
I usually just assume people are mobile where it is a PITA to find and link things compared to at a computer.
uh *kitten* that the mobile app for using these forums blows0 -
This content has been removed.
-
when people say they want to eat "clean" I think what most mean by it is just more veg, fruit, meat, complex carbs, etc.
Adding to this and why it annoys me, there's an assumption that those of us who don't self-identify as "eating clean" don't eat lots of veggies, fruit, complex carbs, lean proteins, fats like olive oil and nuts, etc. But of course that's not true at all. We simply don't think that it's necessary to cut out ice cream to do that or never to eat bagged spinach, perhaps. But constantly not eating "clean" is equated with not caring about health and eating McD's 24/7 (when I haven't eaten McD's for many years since I don't even like it). Eating "clean" wouldn't have helped me lose weight at all if it means eating lots of veg, etc., since I did that when I was fat. One doesn't get fat only if one eats lots of stereotypical stuff like Twinkies and McD's (and of course plenty of people who eat those things in moderate amounts don't get fat).0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.
it's not really irresponsible and unkind if 12 step programs don't actually work
that's why I'm wondering just how effective they are
if they work then yes you are def right
This question of 12 step programs working depends on the individual.
that may be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread
you cannot determine the success of ANYTHING based on the results of a single individual
which is why I asked how effective they are
as in, overall success rate
Let me be more clear. One the only way you would get a stat on the 12 step programs working is by the individual saying that it has work. What is the success we talking about? Lets just assume it is true alcoholism to no drinking. That rarely happens. Also not every person in AA is an alcoholic. I was one of those who was not an alcoholic. Alcohol treatment is a requirement at least in the state of MD with some alcoholic infractions (DUI is a must for alcohol treatment in MD). The places I went to almost requirement you go to some for on AA. I can tell you the amount of stories I have heard on relapse as to the ones who pick up more chips to show your sobriety.
Lets just say for my outpatient treatment the counselors told me to stop telling the group that I had a sober night at the bar. My program you were pissed tested for alcohol. I think it can be shown in your system for up to 72 hours if I remember. Then the what I felt were true alcoholics would put me aside and tell me how they felt I was correct to not associate myself as alcoholic.
Will there be a stat on AA and the success rate? I don't think this stat will ever exist.
@Mr_Knight mentioned an epidemiological study on this
asked him for a source (and more info) but he didn't provide it yet because he hates us apparently
He needs to bring out that study because like I said at least in state of MD if you get a DUI you will more likely find yourself in AA. I am not sure about other states but I do know in New York they have stricter consequences than MD for DUI(s). Also Virginia has stricter consequences than MD. Does these stricter consequences help with the people who would then go into AA? I feel might have a better success rate for the 12 steps.
I was lucky to that my program let me go to NA which had people more my age to relate to. I found it very hard to relate to people whose sobriety were longer than my age. Like do you even remember your last drink.
My programs was weird though. I got the vibe that they would let you relapse and the consequence was you had to tell the group and go through the relapse prevention steps. Also it would more likely show on your piss test that you did relapse. If you didn't tell the group then the counselors had problems.
This discussion is a total derailment of the thread, but I do want to say that outpatient treatment and AA are totally different things.
Additionally, I am not sure what you are sure you know about the consequences in NY, but as someone who was a court evaluator in a county in NY for those with alcohol and drug charges, I know that AA is not court mandated, in fact it cannot be court mandated.
I said New York has stricter consequences. I never talk about what those consequences were.0 -
wake me up when it's all over0
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.
it's not really irresponsible and unkind if 12 step programs don't actually work
that's why I'm wondering just how effective they are
if they work then yes you are def right
This question of 12 step programs working depends on the individual.
that may be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread
you cannot determine the success of ANYTHING based on the results of a single individual
which is why I asked how effective they are
as in, overall success rate
Let me be more clear. One the only way you would get a stat on the 12 step programs working is by the individual saying that it has work. What is the success we talking about? Lets just assume it is true alcoholism to no drinking. That rarely happens.
How do you know? What is TRUE alcoholism?
In one sense it's an AA concept for people who need AA. I had a huge argument about this once upon a time with an AA proponent who said that a true alcoholic cannot stop drinking without AA. I said my dad did (which is true), and got told that therefore he was not a true alcoholic. Talk about circular definitions (and in this case one I am certain is false).
But definitely off topic. ;-)0 -
I swear some people in AA are a little special at times. I got in an argument with someone who was sober for longer than my age about why I need a sponsor when I told him got this. Yes I can say I corrected this behavior of mine. Then again I wasn't an alcoholic. Can it be done with no help. I honestly feel that ones family can save an alcoholic. So I can believe that your dad did truly want to change his ways and he did for himself and you. I applaud him. He did an almost impossible thing.lemurcat12 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.
it's not really irresponsible and unkind if 12 step programs don't actually work
that's why I'm wondering just how effective they are
if they work then yes you are def right
This question of 12 step programs working depends on the individual.
that may be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread
you cannot determine the success of ANYTHING based on the results of a single individual
which is why I asked how effective they are
as in, overall success rate
Let me be more clear. One the only way you would get a stat on the 12 step programs working is by the individual saying that it has work. What is the success we talking about? Lets just assume it is true alcoholism to no drinking. That rarely happens.
How do you know? What is TRUE alcoholism?
In one sense it's an AA concept for people who need AA. I had a huge argument about this once upon a time with an AA proponent who said that a true alcoholic cannot stop drinking without AA. I said my dad did (which is true), and got told that therefore he was not a true alcoholic. Talk about circular definitions (and in this case one I am certain is false).
But definitely off topic. ;-)
Honestly I don't feel there is a one definition for alcoholism. It affects people differently. Some people don't go to the extreme like some of the stories I heard because of drinking.
It like clean eating. There is no true definition. Also this thread was derailed because I don't like when people compare food addiction to alcohol addiction.
BTW I was that person in treatment who said
I am powerless to food which is step one in the 12 step program. The dirty looks I got before they started to see that I was correct. I think that was when I started using MFP too. Like almost the exact day I used it was day one of treatment.
The only comparison I feel about food addiction and alcoholism since some could say I had both was that it affect people differently. Some can do in moderation. Some can't. Am I powerless to food now? NOPE. Do I feel better that both of those bad happens are correct. Well my weight and blood work show that I am in the best shape on my life.
Also that poster that said eat crap and see how you feel the next morning? The only time junk food feels like crap in the morning is when I am well over my calorie limit. at least 500+ calories.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.
it's not really irresponsible and unkind if 12 step programs don't actually work
that's why I'm wondering just how effective they are
if they work then yes you are def right
This question of 12 step programs working depends on the individual.
that may be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread
you cannot determine the success of ANYTHING based on the results of a single individual
which is why I asked how effective they are
as in, overall success rate
Let me be more clear. One the only way you would get a stat on the 12 step programs working is by the individual saying that it has work. What is the success we talking about? Lets just assume it is true alcoholism to no drinking. That rarely happens. Also not every person in AA is an alcoholic. I was one of those who was not an alcoholic. Alcohol treatment is a requirement at least in the state of MD with some alcoholic infractions (DUI is a must for alcohol treatment in MD). The places I went to almost requirement you go to some for on AA. I can tell you the amount of stories I have heard on relapse as to the ones who pick up more chips to show your sobriety.
Lets just say for my outpatient treatment the counselors told me to stop telling the group that I had a sober night at the bar. My program you were pissed tested for alcohol. I think it can be shown in your system for up to 72 hours if I remember. Then the what I felt were true alcoholics would put me aside and tell me how they felt I was correct to not associate myself as alcoholic.
Will there be a stat on AA and the success rate? I don't think this stat will ever exist.
@Mr_Knight mentioned an epidemiological study on this
asked him for a source (and more info) but he didn't provide it yet because he hates us apparently
I gave you the name of the study in my original post on this. If you can't Google it from there....you're beyond my powers of help.
:drinker:
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »In one sense it's an AA concept for people who need AA. I had a huge argument about this once upon a time with an AA proponent who said that a true alcoholic cannot stop drinking without AA. I said my dad did (which is true), and got told that therefore he was not a true alcoholic. Talk about circular definitions (and in this case one I am certain is false).
Yeah. AA works for some people, but there's no denying it has its fair share of woo-woo.
0 -
half_moon wrote:The ideal diet is to watch your intake of calories and limit the sugar, carbs, etc. that those calories comprise.
I see very often on these boards, however, that so long as people are going by the Calories In/Calories Out rule, you can really eat whatever you want.
If you are exercising and following a CI/CO with deficit, how does *what* you eat change your results?
So, if I was netting 1,300 calories a day, but everything I ate did not fall under a "Clean" diet, would my weight suffer? My body composition? Inviting anyone with experience, insight, or science to help explain.
I suppose to extend that answer -- what about body composition? Scale aside, would a clean CI/CO eater look fit and active while a non clean CI/CO eater look frumpy and heavier?
I know that every person is different, etc. ( eg, I am lactose intolerant and any dairy would make me appear frumpy!) but generally, are the affects of a cleaner eater obvious externally?
Your overall calories will determine what your body weight does.
Eating "clean" foods is a definition that is diff for everyone, and you will never agree on it.
What is "clean" to you, may not be "clean" to me.
As far as body composition goes, that will be based on macros, as well as exercised performed.
And for those who follow IIFYM, they don't just sit around and eat twinkies and doughnuts.....I don't at least.
My diet is CI/CO or IIFYM.....so I just eat foods that allow me to hit my calorie and macro goals......
And it can be any food I want it to be.
Now if you are a person who has issues w/ certain foods, then yes, you will have to cut out certain foods.....
But if you are healthy and no allergies, then all foods can be integrated into your diet.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
@lemurcat12 - first -Am on a phone, sorry.
People like you (and me) who eat moderately, and mostly nutritious foods, are not the issue, as far as I'm concerned. There really are people who lack nutritional and culinary knowledge and experience and are asking for substantive guidance on how to eat for health and weight loss. I saw one recent poster who asked about this, got a ton of "whatever you want as long as it fits" replies, and quit in frustration. She wanted to know *how* she might meet her goals, and there are some answers to that that are more than less helpful.
I agree that saying "don't eat this" is less helpful than "consider this and try to make it taste great". But a lot of people find it easy to think about food using heuristics and that's really how I see it.
I mean yes spinach is processed in a plant and placed into a bag but defining it as essentially processed is kind of disingenuous imo. It's a far cry from Doritos which is , I think its fair to say, the kind of thing ppl mean when they think of "junk" food that doesn't serve their goals. Then there's stuff like Lean Cuisine dinners or whatever that's somewhere in between ('re processing intensity, let's say).
I agree also that people benefit most when things are easy. The issue is what's easy for whom. For some it's a lean cuisine dinner, for someone else it's a rule of thumb. Which is why on here, say, Tailoring advice to the person asking a question is important.0 -
But in general if I deduce that someone is really talking about lean meat and veggies, and they are attracted to that idea and it helps them, I'm not going to fuss over their exact terminology0
-
SherryTeach wrote: »Calories in/calories out for weight loss. Nutrient dense food for health. Pay attention to both. Ditch the word "clean."
YES!! Thank you!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions